Usman isn't playing the first Test but Ferguson has gunned it in ODIs.

Thats right you're going to start picking Test players on ODI form! Hahahahaha Australia has become New Zealand.

Phil Hughes to confirm by smashing it round domestically but failing across 20 tests internationally.

Originally Posted by Athlai

Jeets doesn't really deserve to be bowling.

Originally Posted by Dan

in the future where we're all social justice-y Cribb can ride down the street to pick up some raw milk from Coles on a motorised esky while smoking meth, firing an RPG into the air, and carrying the case of British-import Stella he's polygamously (and privately) married alongside a genderfluid Zambian businessperson and a coke-snorting 18-year-old cyborg girl.

I know the selectors have Ferguson in mind, but isn't that kind of irrelevant to you posting your team?

I mean, North batting four with Clarke at five is even less likely than Khawaja getting picked.

Tend to try pick around what the selectors have in mind otherwise I'd put Jeets in that Aussie team. Batting order is pretty much open to whim though, I know North won't bat at 4 but it seems like a decent call.

Also as a New Zealander I only pick Test teams based on ODI performances.
Clearly.

Direbirds FTW!

Originally Posted by WindieWeathers

As they say "if you've got nothing good to say then don't say nothing at all" :cool:

Tend to try pick around what the selectors have in mind otherwise I'd put Jeets in that Aussie team.

Then you can forget about North batting four.

As I said, you either pick a realistic team or you pick what you'd pick if you were in charge. Naming a team with North at four and Ferguson at six doesn't make any sense unless you actually think Ferguson should be playing.

As I said, you either pick a realistic team or you pick what you'd pick if you were in charge. Naming a team with North at four and Ferguson at six doesn't make any sense unless you actually think Ferguson should be playing.

I'll keep that in mind next time I'm picking my hypothetical lineup and using my selection process.

Wouldn't mind terribly if Ferguson got picked, as long as it wasn't over Khawaja; Usman has played 22 FC games to Ferguson's 48, and already has more hundreds than him, including a (very recent) double. He has to be next in line.

Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber

Only a bunch of convicts having been beaten 3-0 and gone 9 tests without a win and won just 1 in 11 against England could go into the home series saying they will win. England will win in Australia again this winter as they are a better side which they have shown this summer. 3-0 doesn't lie girls.

Don't get the logic of dropping Hauritz for a fourth quick when as you've acknowledged here, there isn't really anyone who's demanding selection. George and Hazelwood are unproven rookies. Harris is injured/coming back from injury, and given the difference between him fully fit and only thereabouts, you'd want to see that he's recovered properly. Siddle is really the only one, and I don't know whether he's going to be any better than Hauritz in general. Whichever fourth specialist quick you bring in is going to be the fifth best quick in the team, after the current three and Watson, so what do we think they'll do that four better quicks won't get done? This isn't India that's about to land, and some of the Poms definitely don't know what they're doing with spin.

My reasoning is as follows:

1. I don't believe Hauritz has what it takes to be a legitimate threat against top order batsman (which is what would be required if he was to be in the side). If he is just in the team to to add variety and conserve runs etc. I think North, Clarke and Katich can do that job just fine (as the test series in India proved). Furthermore, given the good fast bowling line up (Johnson, Bollinger, Hilfenhaus) who will probably thrive in Gabba conditions, Hauritz could easily be targeted as the weak link.
2. I don't think Watson should be used much as a main bowler in this series. He is one of our best batsmen and should focus most of his attention of that job to boost our vunerable batting line-up. Therefore, if Watson isn't used much as bowler, a 4th fast bowler (not including Watson) would be useful to manage the load (especially as though Bollinger and Hilf have had injuries recently) and add more variety to the attack.
3. Seeing as though Johnson is completely erratic, it is always useful to have an extra option. If the bad Johnson decides to turn up, that leaves the side with only Bollinger and Hilf to rely on.
4. If the 4th fast bowler was a debutant, as I said before, that could potentially be a good weapon against England who know all about Hauritz, but would know little about the new bowler. I think Hauritz would be a source of comfort for England more than anything. I also disagree that the 4th bowler would be the 5th best in the team. Both Siddle and Harris look just as good as any of the current line up. And e.g. Copeland or Cameron could be better - who knows. You could argue that the 4th bowler might fail, and you'd have to rely on the other 3. However, the exact same argument could be made with Hauritz. There is nothing much to suggest he will succeed in Aus either.

All that being said though, it seems at this stage Hauritz playing is very likely (as per Chappell's comments). I just really don't like the look of the team with Hauritz in it though, especially if North and Hussey are retained. Because then the team is practically identical to the one that toured England - one England would know they can beat, and are highly familiar with. I feel this Ashes series should be the dawn of a new era for Australian cricket, not just a continuation of the same old mediocrity.

Usman isn't playing the first Test but Ferguson has gunned it in ODIs.

Thats right you're going to start picking Test players on ODI form! Hahahahaha Australia has become New Zealand.

Well there is a bit of history involved. Michael Clarke was very similar to Ferguson. Played ODI cricket for a couple of years before his Test debut and he had an ordinary FC record.

There are other batsmen too that got their foot in the door through the ODI side: Mark Waugh, Darren Lehmann, Mike Hussey - all played ODIs for 2-3 years before Test debuts. Of course those guys had superior FC records to Ferguson.

It's hard to fault Ferguson on his FC record because he's barely had the chance to right that record in the last 2 years. So you are really arguing that he's wasn't good enough 2 years ago, so therefore he's not good enough now. But really - stuff from 2 years ago shouldn't be relevant today eg. Shane Watson went belly up as an opener for QLD 2 years ago - does that mean he shouldn't be picked as an opener today? No. That's an easy arguement though because Watson's had the chance to prove that he can open. So really, the fairest thing for Ferguson is to get him more cricket. That way he can PROVE if his FC record is misleading or not. But I can understand if the selectors do go for him - they are trusting their eyes, rather than some outdated stats.

That's the impression I'm getting lately. Their predicament is partially selector-engineered which is, well, hilarious from an Englishman's perspective because for so long it has been us who couldn't organise ourselves out of a paper bag. But where has the decisiveness gone? The confidence in a young tyro to step up and give us a kick in the nads? Where's the grit? The shoe seems to be on the other foot. Now we're the ones with the settled side, the positive, forward-thinking board and the ability, I think, to terrorise the old enemy for a while. And I've never known an Australian to chuck a hissy fit under the pressure of the big stage as Johnson did in the Ashes last year. Lost your hard edge lads?

Im really not sure why Hauritz is being considered for Brisbane given the reports on what the pitch is going to play like. Hauritz outside of Sydney/Adelaide is a real recipe for disaster. 4 quicks is the way to go IMO.

Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!

*He bat's at 4 for WA
*He's a 'boom or bust' batsman. You don't want a guy like that coming in at #6 IMO. You want him coming in earlier because if he does fail then you've got 2 proper batsmen in to halt any collapse, and your #6 to come. Batting him at #6, means the keeper has to halt any potential collapses and if it's due to a good spell of bowling he may not be able to resist with his inferior technique.
*And thinking more positively, North is the most likely of Clarke/Hussey/North to score a big hundred right now. So get him in there first. Clarke might be just as likely to score a ton, but Clarke rarely scores big centuries.
*It would let him partner Clarke more often, and that might give the Poms some bad memories of 2009.
*It would be a good confidence booster for him if Ricky comes and says, hey Marcus you're in at 4.
*It fits well with the other 2 guys as well, since we know Clarke is a good #5, and if Hussey is retained he's potentially a very good #6 too. He bats there in ODIs and even in Test cricket many of his better knocks have come with the lower order.

really good point. If North must play, then #4 isn't a bad idea at all.

That's the impression I'm getting lately. Their predicament is partially selector-engineered which is, well, hilarious from an Englishman's perspective because for so long it has been us who couldn't organise ourselves out of a paper bag. But where has the decisiveness gone? The confidence in a young tyro to step up and give us a kick in the nads? Where's the grit? The shoe seems to be on the other foot. Now we're the ones with the settled side, the positive, forward-thinking board and the ability, I think, to terrorise the old enemy for a while. And I've never known an Australian to chuck a hissy fit under the pressure of the big stage as Johnson did in the Ashes last year. Lost your hard edge lads?

Think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone on this board that'd disagree with your main points here, tbh. Australian selectors just spineless atm.

I will also add that this season has been Australia's wettest since like ... ever.

- Last year CA has asked all curators to start leaving more grass on the pitches
- One of Australia's wettest season in history
- Recent Domestic results at this ground
- Curator has said that if there is any moisture left in the pitch before the Test starts, grass will grow quickly underneath.

Adding all these together, I think the expectations is pretty clear.

All good points TT.

I think the curators will actually be under enormous pressure from the State asssociations to not have the game fizzle out within three days - given the number of prepurchased tickets for this Ashes series, and the stream of gold that will flow into the coffers.